No Bees No Humans—Act

Protect Polinators from Careless Insecticide Use

sponsored by aGREATER.US • Become a Co-sponsor

primary topic: Food Supply
secondary topics:

STAR RATING — CLICK TO RATE
91%
BIPARTISAN RATING

From the Avaaz.org website. AVAAZ petition to save the honeybees - please sign online: Dear friends: Silently, billions of bees are dying off and our entire food chain is in danger. Bees don't just make honey, they are a giant, humble workforce, pollinating 90% of the plants we grow.

Scientists increasingly blame one group of toxic pesticides for their rapid demise, and bee populations have soared in four European countries that have banned these products. But powerful chemical companies are lobbying hard to keep selling this poison. Our best chance to save bees now is to push the US and EU to join the ban -- their action is critical and will have a ripple effect on the rest of the world.

We have no time to lose -- the debate is raging about what to do. This is not just about saving bumble bees, this is about our survival. Let’s build a giant global buzz calling for the EU and US to outlaw these killer chemicals and save our bees and our food. Sign the emergency petition now and send it on to everyone and we’ll deliver it to key decision makers:


 


http://www.avaaz.org/en/save_the_bees/97.php?cl_tta_sign=eb9c769d651f17111c250698eb9dabab 


 


[Editor's Note: No bees, no polination. No polination, no food. No food, no humans. This is not an issue to gamble anything on. All future new pesticides need to be proven to have no affect on honeybee populations before being approved for use.]

Op-eds

Submit an Op-ed

Name
   
Email
   
Subject:
 
Op-ed:
 

 

Op-ed Guidelines
Please bring up points that were missed, elaborate on issues not fleshed out, add ways to make the idea/bill better, suggest a companion for GREATER Raters to consider. Please check your facts, grammar, syntax, punctuation, credit sources and quotes, and keep it under 500 words unless you absolutely cannot—then never more than 700 words. Please keep your criticism constructive. We will likely not print destructive criticism although a well written partisan rant bringing up new issues in the idea/bill or previous Op-eds may be accepted if it ends on a constructive note—especially if it offers an alternative idea/bill.

Shorter "letters" are encouraged that bring a new facet to the subject. The intent of the Op-eds is to fully cover the issue for the kind reader to consider before rating, and not waste their time with redundancy or the dreaded—"people-screaming-at-one-another-while-wearing-earplugs-syndrome." Think of the idea/bill as the base with the Op-eds stacked on top to form a structurally sound argument. The goal here is to have a GREATER US for the greatest number of citizens/neighbors. We may publish your piece without notice—so please only submit completed articles. We may, also, contact you for a rewrite or edit. We might even offer suggestions. It is our intention to fairly present the views of fiscal conservatives, independents, and social liberals—to find the overlap of whole-hearted support (nonpartisan) plus the commonality of the "I-can-live-with-that" (bipartisan).

Your Ad Here